we THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA, BAN§3§!gL§3R'§Q.:'~ A [
mrrea THIS THE 11*" DAY ;2Qe9-- _f %
35903.51'
THE HON'BLE MR.3USTICE P'i'V;"¥*i:?NAGAM'{)§-i23.!§§-I t>tAs\% M
was": pgnnom NO:vi:S'?37~«1.§}73--§[2§f}'€3!3 Lg-;:~%eV4%c:r5c_)
BE'mEEN:- "
3. SR} 3 RAMDAS E§_H:.ENOf_':'__ .
SIG LATE iS.MA'{>HA'*JA RTf3H'ENflYv.'
AGE0%ABTom'f%%52:yEAs1's,LM "
ax? S'i-«;Er~.i(:rYs~,'3 _CO{?E¥'O{}N D,
JOSUMUW sT*r~:.EEfr,~ _ "V ..
MANGALORE-525 1','Q ;K,
2 sax s.sH1vA9;A¥A SFEENGY
_ Sm; LA*:"E.s.MA.x:AHAv;s R snmov
. AC3ED1P:Bi1*L!T so Y'E'ARS,
% jR,:T FLRT 916.201,
A V131?-%YANAC§AR"APARTMENTS,
«.o'9p«. se%§v%Aw;x3'1 HOUSE,
SLJNTS. HGSTEL ROAD
MAra6ALcR&-5?3 903, m<;
~ SRI.S .R.ADHAKRISHNA SHENOY
_ 'S/C1LATE.S.MADHAVA R SHEEOY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
ER/AT saamovs compourea
M ' JODUMUTT STREET,
MANGALORE-575 G01, €3,141
(BY sax vmw KRISHNA B?-IAT, Ami;
SR§.S.SATISH SHE¥\iGY
S/O ¥..ATE.S.MADHAVA R SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RXAT FLAT NO.206,
CHAETHANYA APARTMENTS, _-- " --
QPP. GUJEATHI SCHOOL, ALAKE3'
MANGALORE-5?'5 003-, §.K ' "
AN{):-
3.
SR: PRASANNA :<uMA§'
@ PRASHANTHAKUMARVKQYIAN '
s/0 l.A.7!'--E. S';'i<.KO*7£IAN--..V
AGE3 ABOUT.s48«YEARS;~._
PRESEN-T'i.Y RzA*rf9aos%pEcT HOUSE 3?,
MATHAR PACADY, 'MAzt3§.eN;
MUMBAI-"lg; V %
REPTD. BY HIS PA"HC2LDER
THE;_2ND RESP'i3¥'4vI;?_££é|$2T
2 »A $m.MAMAfHA,n w/0 B.OAYAR ANBA
' AGED .}:.f'f~Bk<:»L:'r%4§:a YEARS,
'?_f'.E$E!§TLY_li§fAT sax NIVAS,
5~ MAI:'&,_ {W cmss,
MALLESWALYA,
ABAHGALGRE-75
?#_R;F'RAVEEN KUMAR :<cmAN
ks/o s K KOTIAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
WPRESENTLY RESIDING C/0 BAKALA
?.O.BOX-Ai.-QASAB-~11993,
SHAKRA, RIYADH, KSA
REPTD. BY ms PA women
THE 2"" RESPONDENT
UL’/”L
‘
virtue of the term lease deed dated 13.81.2083 executed by
respendenfs mother Smt.Janeki. At the time of evtdenfie of
the petitioners, theugh filed I.A.,E\ie.6 under Grder
(SP5 to amend their written statement ampiirymgr~rit_nei:der%;2’::;§ef
already taken with regard tor the term..iee_ee_:;.tleVet$x:d–e’ted–r
133332663 executee by 3anai<E. A under amptigm
the trial Ccurt rejected the apntifia-tried» fiied ~by petitioners. '' V
Hence this writ petition.
3. petitioners have already
taken the dvlefemze the term lease deed dated
13.91.2l3Q3, inaitheiri.’fvrr’itté’n statement. The preposed
enly an”1’p’l’i’i’i’cV:ation ef the defence already taken.
Tnedern. defence is in the nature of evidence.
‘ V”*~=’EvEderéte:Vr3eed’n:et’:l’:e pleaded. It is open for the petitioners to
_._i,i’.jij;$t_l__d’uce evidence amplifying their defence already taken. If
4:-:’stié§l’–‘”:V’_”en_’.e.vidern:e is placed on record by the petitioners, then
‘P
. tritéal Court is under obligatien to consider the same even in
absence of eetailed pleading in the written statement.
“Therefore, I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the
one
impugned order on I.A.No.6. Accordingiy, the writ peti’ti:o’o_Vis
iiabie to be dismissed in so far as it reietes
I.A.No.6.
4. The petitioners flied §..A.No,.7 u~ndf?er”iiQ.’rder’tiff-ii.?tu%:eié
14 CPC for a direction to the resqoondents’ to tiliree
documents said to be in their custociu, ,’\i’he’trinei_i:”Cou§rt under
the impugned order rejectedtiie i}ppjicetion.A:’on» the ground that
the documents ceiiecl. for t:yv–vth’e ‘pei:itio’iiers’1.’.as not relevant,
Before theitriéi ‘iioiiirt;:ijésoon’cients_'”fiied objections to I.A.No.7
interaiia covritelridirigVVVt:i§’jat_’i’th:e*;r::’hove produced authenticated
copy of the docurrieut,’;.<:ie_ueréi Power of Attorney and denied
,{t'ha.,t_thoyiiarei: not iniiooesessiou of the third document specified
i:.VA.:No.7. In so far as the second document is
it=…..v.coucerhed, theftriai Court heid that the pass-«book of the
.ji_t'i'_:«.'_§iei_ntiffs irivthevsavings bank account, Canara Bank Branch for
thetf";:erio'd 2091 to 2007 as not reievant. It is settled position
.of'."iai}i3 that a party who is in possession and custody of host
V'"*.._i'_ii.ece of evidence is required to produce the same before the
Court. If for any reason, if a party fans to produce the best
A,
d\'"
piece of evidence avaiiable, then it is always epen for thefiiourt
do draw adverse inference against such a
Sec.124(g) of the Evidence Act. The triai court;
influenced by its observation in the imriizéthied mfider
require to apply Sec.214 of the E\{i:ier3ce~..A:€~t:, if
the respondents have not produced”‘va:¥:iocur::en_t ‘in jtheiiteiistociy
and which is requireti for.th.e_ pL§’r’fp”bsve;L’-aédjudifitibh of the
suit.
With .ivt¥*ieVebs:e:’*\23tionv,~»–the petition is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/–r
Iudge
fin;